United States v. Erik Adams-Reading ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •               United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 18-3653
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Erik Nikkolas Adams-Reading
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota
    ____________
    Submitted: October 14, 2019
    Filed: December 9, 2019
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM
    Erik Nikkolas Adams-Reading1 appeals from the second revocation of her
    supervised release and the sentence that the district court2 imposed upon that
    revocation. We affirm.
    Adams-Reading was sentenced to ninety months’ imprisonment and fifteen
    years’ supervised release in 2011, after she pleaded guilty to receiving child
    pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). She was released
    from prison and began serving her first term of supervised release in December 2016.
    The district court revoked her supervised release in May 2018 for failing to complete
    sex offender treatment and sentenced Adams-Reading to three months’ imprisonment
    and fifteen years’ supervised release.
    Adams-Reading was released from prison a second time in July 2018. As a
    special condition of her supervision, Adams-Reading was required to “participate in
    sex offender treatment as approved by the probation officer.” She began sex offender
    treatment in August 2018 and was discharged in October, whereupon the U.S.
    Probation Office moved for revocation of her supervised release. After a hearing on
    the matter, the district court concluded that Adams-Reading had violated her
    conditions of supervised release and imposed a nine-month term of imprisonment and
    a fifteen-year term of supervised release.
    Adams-Reading argues that the district court abused its discretion in revoking
    her term of supervised release. See United States v. Boyd, 
    792 F.3d 916
    , 919 (8th
    Cir. 2015) (reviewing the district court’s decision to revoke supervised release for an
    abuse of discretion, and the district court’s “subsidiary factfinding” for clear error).
    1
    Erik Adams-Reading goes by Erika and is in the process of gender transition.
    Accordingly, this opinion uses she/her pronouns to refer to appellant.
    2
    The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the
    District of Minnesota
    -2-
    She claims that she did not violate the conditions of her supervised release because,
    although she was discharged from treatment, that discharge was due to her mental
    health conditions and not to her failure to participate in treatment. At the revocation
    hearing, however, Adams-Reading’s therapist testified that she was discharged from
    treatment because, along with her refusal to accept responsibility for her conviction,
    she failed to complete assignments, did not show up for scheduled meetings, and
    failed to comply with the required polygraph examination. We thus conclude that the
    district court did not clearly err in holding that Adams-Reading did not participate in
    sex offender treatment and acted within its discretion in revoking her supervised
    release.
    We also conclude that Adams-Reading’s revocation sentence was substantively
    reasonable. The district court considered the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
    § 3553(a), imposed a sentence within the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range, and
    explained its sentencing decision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States
    v. DeMarrias, 
    895 F.3d 570
    , 574 (8th Cir. 2018) (holding that a sentence within the
    Guidelines range is presumed reasonable).
    The judgment is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-3653

Filed Date: 12/9/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/9/2019